Punjab-Haryana High Court
M.O.I Engineering Ltd And Anr vs Presiding Officer And Ors on 9 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117991-DB
LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:09.09.2024
1. LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
M.O.I. (Engineering Ltd.) and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents
2. LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
M.O.I. (Engineering Ltd.) and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for
Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 (in LPA-1784-2018)
Mr. Shashi Kumar Rattan, Advocate
for respondent No.2 (in LPA-1764-2018).
***
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE, (ORAL)
1. These intra Court appeals have been filed by the employer
assailing common award dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Labour Court,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117991-DB
LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
whereby the Labour Court while declining the relief of reinstatement with
back-wages with continuity of service adopted the alternative mode of grant of
compensation to the workmen to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- each alongwith
interest @6% per annum.
2. Learned Single Judge, while adjudicating the aforesaid common
award, passed the following order:-
"9. In the present cases, the award is modified to the
extent that both the petitioners shall be entitled to lump-sum
compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs each and the payment shall be
made by the respondent-Management within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the
respondents fail to make the payment within a period of two
months, the petitioners shall be entitled to receive the said amount
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.
10. The writ petitions stand partly allowed in the above
terms."
3. From the above, it is evident that while upholding the award, the
quantum of compensation awarded to the workmen was increased from
Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that both the workmen i.e.
Ravinder Mohan Garg and Rattan Chand had put in more than 22 years and 19
years of service, respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this
Court to the receipt dated 29.08.2014, which reads as under:-
"I, Ravinder Mohan Garg S/o Sh. Jyoti Ram Garg, H.No.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117991-DB
LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
928, Preet Colony, Zirakpur (Mohali) have received a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) from M/s MOI Engineering
Ltd., A-7, Indl. Estate, Mohali vide Cheque No. 176253 dated
28.8.2014 drawn at Axis Bank, Mohali towards full & final
settlement of my claim under the Award dated 16.8.2013 passed
by Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal, Patiala in Reference No. 335 of
2003. I have accepted the award as final & will not challenge the
same in any Court including Hon'ble High Court."
"I, Rattan Chand S/o Sh. Anant Ram, R/o H.No. 280/46,
Ward No. 4, Adarsh Colony, Block-A, VPO Balongi (Mohali) have
received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) from M/s
MOI Engineering Ltd., A-7, Indl. Estate, Mohali vide Cheque No.
176252 dated 28.8.2014 for Rs.50,000/- drawn at Axis Bank,
Mohali and Cheque No. 542400 dated 28.8.2014 drawn at PNB
Mohali for (Rs.1,50,000/- towards full & final settlement of my
claim under the Award dated 16.8.2013 passed by Hon'ble
Industrial Tribunal, Patiala in Reference No. 335 of 2003, I have
accepted the said award in final & final & undertake not to
challenge the same in any Court of law including Hon'ble High
Court."
5. From the aforesaid receipts/undertakings dated 29.08.2014, it is
contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-employer that workmen
have received Rs.2,00,000/- as final settlement of all their claims and they have
given an undertaking that they will not assail the same in any court of law.
6. It is settled in law that no person can be prevented by any
agreement or any testament to avail any statutory remedy available to him in
law.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117991-DB
LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
7. More so, any such agreement between, alone workman on one side
and the mighty employer on the other side, is an unconscionable written
agreement, which has been deprecated by the celebrated judgment of the Apex
Court in 'Central Inland Water Transport Corp. Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly,
1986 SCC(3) 156. The relevant extract of which is extracted herebelow:-
"93. The normal rule of Common Law has been that a
party who seeks to enforce an agreement which is opposed
to public policy will be non-suited. The case of A. Schroeder
Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v. Macaulay, however.
establishes that where a contract is vitiated as being
contrary to public policy, the party adversely affected by it
can sue to have it declared void."
"The types of contracts to which the principle
formulated by us above applies are not contracts which are
tainted with illegality but are contracts which contain terms
which are so unfair and unreasonable that they shock the
conscience of the court. They are opposed to public policy
and require to be adjudged void."
8. From the above, it is obvious that any such undertaking or
agreement between the employer and the workman is held to be against the
public policy, which is also prohibited by Section 23 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.
9. In view of above, this Court sees no cause to interfere with the
well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge and concedes with the
verdict, where the compensation has been increased from Rs. 2,00,000/- to
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117991-DB
LPA-1784-2018 (O&M)
LPA-1764-2018 (O&M)
Rs.4,00,000/- in case of each of the workmen.
10. In view of the above, no scope of interference is made out.
11. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
